Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01954-x

ISRM SUGGESTED METHOD

ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

Philippe Vaskou1   · Eda F. de Quadros2 · Milton Assis Kanji3 · Tom Johnson4 · Mehmet Ekmekci5

Received: 8 July 2019 / Accepted: 19 August 2019

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

List of Symbols LU Lugeon unit or Lugeon value

P Pressure at the pressure gauge (MPa) JRC Joint roughness coefficient
Peff Effective water pressure in the centre of the test
interval (MPa)
Pmin Minimum test pressure (MPa) 1 Introduction
Pmax Maximum test pressure (MPa)
L Length of the test window (m) The most commonly used in situ test to estimate permeabil-
H Length between surface pressure gauge and bottom ity in rock engineering works is the Lugeon test, which is
of (upper) packer (m) also known as the “packer test” or the “water pressure test”.
H1 Height of pressure gauge above ground level (m) It has been designed as a means of assessment of rock mass
H2 Depth of the water table in borehole below ground permeability and the need for grouting at dam sites.
level (m) The Lugeon unit (LU) was introduced later on in refer-
FL Friction losses in pipe (MPa) ence to the “water loss coefficient” with the objective of
Q Water injection flow rate (ℓ/min) characterising the water absorption in the rock mass.
T Transmissivity ­(m2/s) A Lugeon unit (LU) is defined as the loss of one litre of
K Hydraulic conductivity (m/s), often referred to as water per minute per metre of the borehole test section, at
permeability coefficient an excess injection pressure of 1 MPa in the centre of the
D Borehole diameter (m) test interval.
r Radius of the borehole (m) The estimation of equivalent rock mass permeability
R Radius of influence (m) values (hydraulic conductivity K in m/s) was not proposed
e Hydraulic aperture of fractures (mm) in the original publication by Maurice Lugeon (Lugeon
E Mechanical (or physical) aperture of fractures 1933). However, converting Lugeon values into equivalent
(mm) rock permeability has become common practice all over the
S Mean fracture spacing (mm) world. Conversion formulae or factors are applied to esti-
mate the permeability coefficient derived from the constant
injection pressure and flow assuming the media are con-
tinuous and porous. This is normally done using an empiri-
Please send any written comments on this ISRM suggested method
cal approach presuming stationary pressure and flow, and
to Prof. Resat Ulusay, President of the ISRM Commission on
Testing Methods, Hacettepe University, Department of Geological assuming steady-state transmission of water from the bore-
Engineering, 06800 Beytepe, Ankara, Turkey (resat@hacettepe. hole to the surrounding medium (Hvorslev 1951; Zeigler
edu.tr). 1976; Rissler 1977a). Mathematically and physically more
rigorous approaches have been developed for the petroleum
* Philippe Vaskou
[email protected] exploration industry and for the design of waste reposito-
ries (summarised, for example, in Gringarten 2008). It is
1
Geostock, 2 rue des Martinets, CS 70030, important to note that the permeability values derived from
92569 Rueil‑Malmaison Cedex, France Lugeon tests provide only approximate results. However,
2
BGTech Soil and Rock Engineering Ltda, São Paulo, Brazil in the field of rock engineering works, they are sufficient in
3
Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, many cases.
Brazil The Lugeon test can also provide useful information
4
Sterling Environmental, Latham, NY, USA about the hydraulic properties and water-absorption capacity
5
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey of the rock mass under increasing and decreasing pressure

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 P. Vaskou et al.

and also on the non-linearity of flow. Despite its ambiguity sometimes use a “modified Lugeon test” to broaden the scale
from the viewpoint of quantification of permeability, the of the test around the boreholes and allow more sophisti-
Lugeon test yields important information about the variation cated hydrogeological analyses and interpretations of the
of the hydraulic properties with depth, at suitable scales of test results. Those tests, however, lose the initial simplicity
interest for the engineering work. of the method.
In addition to the preliminary definition of hydrostrati- The use of the Lugeon test is more appropriate for rela-
graphic units for further characterisation, the variation of tively well-defined geological conditions, where fractured
the hydraulic properties with depth applies to two classical zones can be identified. The area where the tests will be per-
themes in rock engineering: (i) the evaluation of the perme- formed is adjusted to the scale of the engineering work and
ability profile of dam foundations and the subsequent design results derived from the tests are valid only for the immedi-
of the grout curtain, (ii) the estimation and evolution of per- ate surroundings of the borehole being tested.
meability and water seepage along a tunnel route and the This suggested method is intended to cover only the
need to pre-grout. standard concept of the Lugeon test. The only modifications
Different aspects of the original Lugeon test have been relate to the use of modern equipment to perform the tests.
modified over the years, resulting in the present form (e.g.,
Houlsby 1976, 1990; Pearson and Money 1977). However,
even if the fundamental concepts proposed by Lugeon more 2 History
than 80 years ago have remained the same, several techno-
logical advances have been introduced. The Lugeon test is related to the name of its inventor, Mau-
Two of the most important are the use of straddle packers rice Lugeon, a French geologist who made his career in
and the introduction of automatic data acquisition systems, Switzerland. Maurice Lugeon proposed his test aiming at the
accompanied by peripheral devices. Such electronic systems development of a simple tool to characterise and compare
allow accurate recording of flow and effective pressures in pervious zones of dam foundations in different sites. Origi-
real time during the tests, reducing the work in the field nally, measurements of zones of higher or lower “absorp-
and facilitating the data treatment and interpretation of test tions” in dam foundations were identified by means of tests
results. using cement-based slurries during the execution of a grout
Also, depending on the accuracy required for the results, curtain in dam foundations. However, the comparison of the
borehole imagery (acoustic televiewer and/or optical imag- results ran into numerous difficulties due to the use of slur-
ing) may be used to survey the geometrical characteristics ries of different mixtures and different viscosities. Lugeon
of the fractures appearing in the borehole walls, and to assist identified this problem and required that the use of cement
in detailed statistical analysis of the parameters such as ori- slurry in the boreholes for grouting be preceded by the injec-
entation, spacing and apparent aperture. Borehole imagery tion of water in the same holes under comparable conditions,
may also contribute to the planning and selection of the test giving the origin to the Lugeon test.
intervals, if this is to be on a selective basis, rather than Maurice Lugeon presented his method in a book entitled
continuous. “Barrage et Géologie”, published in Lausanne in 1933, fully
The Lugeon test is a constant head water injection packer dedicated to dam construction. Maurice Lugeon’s objective
test, applied to civil, mining and subterraneous work in was clearly to differentiate pervious from impervious zones
rocks. It should not be confused with other in situ hydraulic in the rock masses of dam foundations. He believed that
tests developed for estimating the hydraulic conductivity the “water injection test” would perfectly characterise the
in porous media (e.g., the falling-head tests and pumping- zones of low and high water absorption in dam foundations
out tests used for hydrogeological characterisation). The and could be used to predict the amount of cement needed
objectives associated with Lugeon tests differ from those to execute a grout curtain. In addition, the test could also
of hydrogeological studies, where the permeability/hydrau- be performed to analyse the grouting efficiency during the
lic conductivity of large horizontal aquifers is generally the distinct grouting phases. According to Lugeon (1933), for
subject of the investigations. dams lower than 30-m height, absorptions within the foun-
One of the advantages of the Lugeon test is its simplicity. dation should not exceed 3 LU, while for dams higher than
However, despite its apparent simplicity, it is recommended 30 m, absorptions within the foundation should not exceed a
that the test execution and interpretation of results be per- maximum value of 1 LU. In his book, several cross-sections
formed by a trained professional in rock mass testing. Many of dam foundations are presented as well as the use of circles
variations of the test have emerged over the years, leading to of various sizes to represent water absorption profiles along
distinct procedures to perform the test, sometimes causing the boreholes, emphasising the importance of the geological
difficulties when comparing the results derived from dif- features versus the water absorption measured through the
ferent sites. Drilling companies under consultant’s advice application of his testing method.

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

When Maurice Lugeon proposed his test, drilling pro- hydrostratigraphic units. The relative change of permeability
cesses were less developed than today. Core barrels were values in LU provides an important tool in hydrostratigraphi-
relatively short (1–2 m in general) and only single mechani- cal characterisation of the lithological units with depth. If
cal packers of small size made of leather or rubber discs accurate hydrogeological characterisation is required, hydro-
were available (inflatable packers started to be used after the geological tests adapted to each specific situation should be
Second World War). With such relatively simple equipment, planned and carried out (e.g., aquifer pumping and recovery
the only feasible way to perform the Lugeon test would tests, falling-head tests, slug tests and others). These can be
be while drilling was progressing, i.e., immediately after in addition to the use of Lugeon tests.
retrieving the core on a short, non-uniform test section. The The main applications of the Lugeon test as described
variable length of the core barrel and/or the core run was here are related to the investigation of the water absorption
typically 1–2 m. Pressure gauges, hydrometer and piston capacity of the rock mass and the estimation of the equiva-
pumps at the ground surface were used. Such equipment lent isotropic coefficient of permeability/hydraulic conduc-
caused difficulties in maintaining the required stabilisation tivity of the rock mass around any given testing borehole.
of the pressures often leading to inaccurate pressure readings This will be used to quantify the variable hydraulic
during the tests. behaviour of the rock mass with depth and location to pre-
With the course of time, several advances were intro- dict the variable amount of grouting to be used in dam foun-
duced in the original equipment proposed by Lugeon, such dations and abutments or in other sub-surface excavations
as inflatable packers of varied sizes and the use of double in rock. It can also be used to estimate the optimal grouting
(straddle) packer systems. In the latter, a test “window” is materials and injection pressures to be used for pre-grouting
provided between the two packers used to isolate the test ahead of tunnels.
interval, such that the water can flow out from this zone only.
The most recent progress includes improved pump designs
that deliver steadier pressure and subsequent flow (e.g.,
centrifugal pumps) as well as the use of downhole pressure 4 Description of the Test
transducers and flow meters, to register pressures and flow
during the tests, in parallel with automatic data acquisition 4.1 Principle of the Test
systems, able to monitor results in real time, during the test.
These advances allowed technical improvements regarding The Lugeon test can be defined as a stepwise constant head
both the acquisition and interpretation of tests, as well as the permeability test performed in an isolated test zone of a
possibility of performing the tests using the bottom-upwards borehole. A series of distinct stages of pressures and water
technique saving time using double (straddle) packers. injection are used to perform the test at different depths in
isolated intervals of the borehole, aiming to characterise the
hydraulic properties of the various zones along the borehole
3 Objectives and to produce a depth-permeability profile based on the
test results.
The objective of this suggested method is to provide guid- The first step when performing the test is to record
ance to contractors, engineers, engineering geologists and the static groundwater level in the borehole. This level is
other professionals in charge of performing and interpreting required to calculate the effective test pressure (Peff) in case
Lugeon tests for rock engineering use. The Lugeon test is a pressure transducer is not used, and to assess any leakage
described here with some adaptations to allow the use of around the packers during the test.
modern and efficient equipment, so that tests can be per- The test consists in measuring the amount of water
formed without fundamentally modifying the initial concept injected under magnitudes of pressure in an isolated inter-
proposed by Maurice Lugeon. val of the borehole over a certain period. Inflatable packers
Existing standards on the Lugeon test (ASTM D4630-96 are used to isolate the selected test intervals. When the test
2008 and ISO 22282-3 2012) describe terms, definitions, is made using a single packer, the effective test pressure
symbols and units used in the test, as well as the test prepara- in the test section (Peff) can be recorded using a pressure
tion and procedures. The use of systematic rules to carry out transducer located in the centre of the test interval. When
the Lugeon test and for interpretation of the results allows a a straddle packer is used, the effective pressure in the test
valuable assessment of site conditions and a direct compari- section is registered using a pressure transducer placed
son between different sites. between the straddle packers. Independent of the way the test
Lugeon tests should never be a substitute for distinct is performed, the effective pressure in the centre of the test
hydrogeological tests which have distinct scopes. Lugeon interval needs to be recorded or calculated if the pressure is
tests, however, can be used in preliminary definition of recorded at a gauge installed at the well head.

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

The effective pressure measured in the centre of the test the case of joints having a low angle to the borehole axis).
interval depends on the groundwater level and on other fac- Inclined boreholes can make the situation even worse. In
tors such as the depth of the test interval, the height of the such cases, it may become necessary to perform a Lugeon
injection pipe above the ground surface and the head losses test in unstable zones immediately after drilling, then cement
associated with flow of fluid through the injection pipes. the concerned zone to avoid stability issues, and resume
The practice of calculating the effective pressure from the drilling.
readings of gauges placed at the ground surface can lead to One of the advantages of the system and method is that
much uncertainty in the results. This is mainly due to the multiple tests can be performed sequentially, without inter-
lack of accuracy in the estimation of the head losses occur- ruption after the borehole is drilled and using the same test
ring in the tubes or hoses that conduct the water to the test procedure and apparatus from bottom-upwards. This saves
section. The readings in the gauges could also be inaccurate, time and allows for a specialised team to perform Lugeon
due to, for instance, lack of calibration or insufficient gauge tests, sequentially in multiple boreholes, ensuring a high
sensitivity. level of data quality, consistency and continuity in the
Nowadays, the effective pressure is, in general, recorded methodology.
directly in the centre of the test interval using a pressure
transducer which provides highly accurate and rapid pres-
4.2 Test Equipment
sure readings. The use of pressure transducers is highly rec-
ommended to maximise the accuracy of the test results.
The list of equipment given in Table 1 is required to perform
When a pressure transducer is not used inside the test
the test. This list is suitable for testing with both single and
interval, it is necessary to consider the static groundwater
double (straddle) packer systems. While the procedure is
level and the elevation of the surface pressure gauge to cal-
similar for the use of one or another type of equipment, the
culate the effective pressure on the test section.
number of devices is different as shown in Table 1.
Classically, when the test window is located below the
Automatic data acquisition systems capable of measuring,
groundwater table, the calculation of the effective pressure
displaying and recording test data in real time have become
is made (Eq. 1) considering the gauge pressure, corrected
commercially available over the last decades. The use of an
for the difference of elevation between the gauge and the
electronic data acquisition system allows monitoring and
groundwater level, decreased by the friction losses occurring
recording of the flow rate and pressure values over a speci-
in the pipes (see also sketch in Table 3)
fied time interval (for instance, each minute). The informa-
Peff = P + H1 + H2 −FL. (1) tion relative to the test performance can be displayed in real
In Eqs. 1 and 2, all units have to be converted into MPa. time on a liquid–crystal display (LCD) or directly on the
In the specific situation where the test window is located screen of a portable computer.
above the groundwater table (vadose zone), the calculation Since this type of equipment can measure both pressure
of the effective pressure is done using a different formula and flow rate in real time, the results can be monitored as the
as follows: test proceeds. The analysis can be done in real time using the
plot of flow rate over the section length (Q/L) versus pres-
Peff = P + H + L∕2 − FL. (2) sure, which is automatically displayed on the screen during
For vertical boreholes, height (H1), depth (H 2) and the test. In this relation, Q is the total flow rate (ℓ/min) and
lengths (H and L) are directly measured on the equipment L (m) is the length of the test interval.
whereas vertical projections of these values must be used
for inclined boreholes.
Friction losses (or head losses) depend on the length,
4.3 Single Packer Test Procedure
diameter and type of pipe or hose, as well as the fittings
Single packer tests, typically, are performed during, not after
used in the test assemblage. In such cases, and even if infor-
completion of drilling. A single packer test is performed
mation can be obtained from pipe/tube/hose producers, the
after each core run as the borehole is advanced progressively
friction losses shall be empirically measured at the site with
deeper to minimise the length of the test interval. This pro-
the same tubing used to perform the tests. Table 1 shows a
cedure allows a better characterisation of fractures in fresh
detailed list of equipment needed to perform a Lugeon test.
rock and more accurate conductivity profile along the tested
The use of a straddle packer system to perform the test
borehole. On the other hand, it involves repeated insertion
has increased in many countries in the last 30 years, being
and removal of drilling rods and packer testing apparatus.
nowadays almost a universal practice.
Thus, time spent for manoeuvres becomes important in deep
However, it may sometimes be difficult to run straddle
boreholes making the single packer procedure less efficient
packers in unstable zones (fractured/faulted zones or in
than the double packer method (see Sect. 4.4 below).

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

Table 1  Detailed list of equipment required to perform Lugeon tests

Location Type Quantity Comments and recommendations
SP* DP*

At surface Water tank 1 1 Filled with fresh water (min. 1 ­m3 per test)
Valve 2 2 Manual valves (¼ in. and 1 in.) for flow regulation
Water flowmeter 2 2 Located before the flow regulation valve, measuring ranges: 0–12 ℓ/min, 6–150
ℓ/min, flowmeters
Injection pump 1 1 Centrifugal pump (0–150 ℓ/min)
High pressure hoses (min. 2.5 MPa) 4 4 Injection pipes, linking the ground surface equipment to the test zone
Well head 1 1 Mounted at the top of the test rods linking the injection lines to the test rods
Pressure-reduction valve 1 1 Gas pressure regulation (nitrogen)
Nitrogen or compressed air 1 1 In bottles (approx. 20 l, 200 bar for 5 test intervals (DP))
Enhanced
Data acquisition system 1 1 Real-time data-recording system consisting of A/D converter PC and screen (or
laptop)
Downhole Inflatable packer 1 2 Spare packer sleeve recommended
Slotted pipe or screen (interval access) 1 1 Including interval-extension rods (not necessarily slotted)
Test rods – – Number and length to be adapted to the test depth
Packer inflation line 1 2 For individual packer control, two lines are needed when using double packer,
or single line with upper packer pass-through
Enhanced
Downhole valve 1 1 Highly recommended for low permeability zones
Pressure transducers 2 3 For locations of pressure transducers, see Figs. 2 and 3
Data cable 1 1
Optional
Pressure gauge – 1 Used to detect any leak around the lower packer from the test interval down-
ward, if no real-time pressure transducer is located below the lower packer

(*) SP single packer; DP double packer

The basic equipment needed to perform the Lugeon test During the test, water is injected under a series of pres-
using a single packer is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The sure steps and the resulting pressure is recorded when the
test is, in general, performed in boreholes with static water flow has reached a steady or quasi-steady state condition.
level below the ground surface and above the test section Before starting the test, it is necessary to calculate the
(in the saturated zone). maximum pressure (Pmax) and to programme the pressures
The test interval often varies from 1.5 to 3.0 m. Some- to be applied in each stage during the test.
times, 5-m intervals are used but are not recommended, Two pressure transducers are required: one placed
because of the reasons discussed in the next paragraph. above the packer to detect potential water leakage around
The test interval is limited in the lower portion by the bot- the packer, and one in the centre of the test chamber to
tom of the borehole and in the upper portion by the packer. record the test pressure. In most projects, the host rock is
The packer is, in general, 1–1.5 m in length and should not a uniform porous medium, but a fractured rock mass.
never be less than 1 m long. The test section is crossed by fractures having distinct
Shorter test intervals are preferred to longer intervals geometrical characteristics leading to different hydraulic
to ensure accuracy in the representativeness of the Lugeon conductivities and even different pressures. A transducer
value. The effects of the water-conducting rock fractures located at the centre of the test section will accurately
in the test interval (in general fractions of a millimetre measure an averaged pressure that will be the basis for
scale) that provide narrow pathways for the water flow into the DP increments of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0 MPa excess
the rock mass become less evident if the length (L) of the pressure. Both pressure transducers are linked to the data
test interval considered in the formulae is too great. Nar- acquisition system at the surface.
row fractured zones are also a key issue, because of their The test procedure for the single packer test is given
potentially high conductivity, unless they are clay filled below:
and act as hydraulic barriers.

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

Fig. 1  Typical assemblage of equipment to perform a single packer Lugeon test using an automatic data acquisition system

(a) Cleaning of the borehole. Circulation of the drilling increments which will depend on the maximum pres-
water should be continued (in general, for 10–15 min) sure.
until the water appears clear and free of debris. (e) The packer is introduced and set into the borehole; one
(b) The initial water level in the borehole is measured for pressure transducer is located below the single packer
a period of at least 5 min. to measure the effective pressure in the test section,
(c) Selection of the test interval (if continuous zones are and another pressure transducer is located immediately
not to be measured) is often based on the observation above the single packer to monitor water head varia-
of cores or use of borehole imaging techniques. The tions during the test and detect potential water leakage
test interval is bounded by the bottom of the borehole around the packer.
and the single packer on the upper portion as shown in   If above the water table, water must be injected until
Fig. 1. a constant rate of water loss is achieved indicating that
(d) Before assembling the equipment, it is necessary to the surrounding of the test section is saturated.
define the maximum pressure to be used in the respec- (f) The packer is inflated using a gas bottle (often nitro-
tive interval of testing and to programme the pressure gen) or by means of a gas compressor on the surface,

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

with the objective to isolate the test section. The use of inflating the packers (see remark in single test procedure,
water to inflate packers is not recommended for practi- sect. f).
cal reasons, and in particular, to the difficulty of allow- Three pressure transducers are installed in the system:
ing packer deflation in deep boreholes with high water one above the test interval, one within, and another below
column. the lower packer to monitor the pressure changes during the
(g) It is recommended to inflate the packer following the test. Leakages can be monitored by means of pressure read-
manufacturer technical specifications to avoid any leak- ings during the test. The transducer installed in the test sec-
age. The pressure depends on the diameter of the bore- tion (window) is used to register the pressure during the test.
hole and frequently reaches 2 MPa. The packer inflation Increases in pressure measured by the transducers above the
pressure must be sufficient to overcome the hydrostatic upper packer and below the lower packer indicate leakage
pressure of the water column in the borehole, and to along the outside of the packers or through the rock joints or
account for the selected test pressure(s). matrix, when these are permeable enough to ‘short-circuit’
(h) After the packer is inflated, the static water level in the the flow around the packers.
borehole is measured for a period of at least 5 min. Quinn et al. (2012) define three generic types of leakage
(i) Water is injected through the pipe into the isolated sec- that may occur during a test between packers (see Fig. 3):
tion of the borehole (Fig. 1). The trapped air in the line
is purged through a valve located at the highest point (i) Between the packers and the borehole wall (case A).
of the injection line and a flowmeter is used to record (ii) Through the existing fracture network in the sur-
the amount of flow into the test section during the test roundings of the test window (case B).
(Fig. 1). (iii) Around the packers if the rock mass is pervious
(j) When applying the first stage of pressure, the efficiency (case C).
of the packer can be evaluated by monitoring the water
level in the borehole. Generally, the water level in the Sources of leakage can be monitored in the straddle
borehole rises if the packer is not tightly sealed. packer system by the pressure transducers located above the
(k) For each pressure stage, the flow rate per length Q/L is upper packer and below the lower packer.
registered, where Q is the total flow rate (ℓ/min) and L When it is not possible to control the leakage, one solution
(m) is the length of the test interval. The pressure and is to increase the length of the packers. Due to the flexibility
the flow rate could be recorded in intervals of seconds of the straddle packer system, this could be done through the
or minutes depending on the planned test programme assemblage of packers using an extended length. Another
(five to ten stages) and the software used in the data solution could be to move the equipment to a new position
acquisition system. in the borehole where the sealing could be improved. In this
(l) Each pressure stage is continued for 10 min after the case, a new test section should be programmed.
pressure is stabilised. Recording of total flow is recom- The test procedure using a straddle packer system is simi-
mended to be taken at least every minute during the lar to the one using a single packer, except for the number of
10 min used for each pressure step. Use of automated packers and the instrumentation required:
instrumentation simplifies the process and allows a
higher frequency of data recording. (a) Cleaning of the borehole: the cleaning should continue
(m) Five to ten steps of increasing pressure are used, fol- until the water of circulation appears clear and free of
lowed by the steps of pressure decrease. drilling debris.
(b) The initial water level in the borehole is measured for
4.4 Straddle Packer Test Procedure a period of at least 5 min.
(c) The second step is to select the test section into the
Figure 2 presents a typical assemblage of equipment for borehole based on core observations and/or borehole
performing the Lugeon test using a straddle packer. This imaging.
is a system composed of a machined metal or PVC pipe (d) Before assembling the equipment, it is necessary to
connecting two (or more) packers and instrumented with define the maximum pressure to be used in the respec-
electronic devices. The pipe (or the hose) connecting the tive interval of testing and to programme the pressure
packers extends to the ground surface. stages which will depend on the maximum pressure as
A slotted section (window) is provided between the two described in Sect. 4.5 and Table 2.
packers in the test section, for exit and entrance of water. (e) The three pressure transducers are installed before the
This centrally located window allows the water to flow system is set into the borehole: one in the centre of the
through the test interval to the surrounding rock mass. A test window to register the effective pressure during the
nitrogen (or air) source and an inflation system are used for test; one above the upper packer to measure water head

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

Fig. 2  Typical assemblage of equipment to perform the Lugeon test using the straddle packer and an automatic data acquisition system

variations and to detect potential leakage between the (h) The test is started using consecutive increasing and
packer and the borehole walls; and one below the lower decreasing pressure steps according to the pre-deter-
packer to monitor potential pressure changes and leak- mined pressure programme.
ages during the test. All the pressure transducers are (i) When applying the first stage of pressure, the efficiency
linked to the data acquisition system set on the surface. of the packer seal should be evaluated by observing the
(f) The straddle packer is introduced into the borehole water level in the borehole. Generally, the water level
(Fig. 2). The window is adjusted to the test section. rises when the packer is not tightly sealed.
(g) After the straddle packer is set and the packers are (j) For each pressure stage, the flow rate per length, Q/L
inflated, the water level in the borehole is measured for is registered. The pressure and the flow rate per length
a period of at least 5 min. (Q/L) should be recorded in intervals of seconds or

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

calculate the pressures to be used in the test (Table 2). In gen-

eral, these pressures are recorded in MPa.
The maximum effective pressure can be based on several
parameters: the average unit weight for the rock mass (around
2700 kg/m3 or less in case of sedimentary rocks), the depth of
the test interval, the water level above the test interval and the
pressure losses in the drill rods. The use of electronic devices
and pressure transducers recommended allowing the effective
pressures to be automatically measured and recorded when the
equipment is assembled. The pressure stages in the increas-
ing and decreasing cycles are programmed depending on the
maximum effective pressure.
In many countries, the common practice is to use nine effec-
tive pressure stages (ten pressure stages, including the initial
stabilisation phase of zero pressure) with four increasing steps,
one maximum pressure step and four decreasing steps. How-
ever, depending on the accuracy and the objective of the test,
a higher number of increasing and decreasing pressure stages
can be used. The use of five effective pressure stages (six
stages including the initial stabilisation phase of zero pressure)
is considered as a minimum and a three-step procedure shall be
avoided. Some suggestions and examples for the effective pres-
sure to be applied in Lugeon tests are shown in Table 2, based
on the general practice. Five pressure stages is the minimum
acceptable number of steps.
In dam engineering, the criterion to define the maximum
test pressure (Pmax) in the test is generally based on the depth
of the test interval (0.023 MPa to 0.025 MPa per metre of
depth) or ¾ of the overburden pressure, with use of the den-
Fig. 3  Straddle packer showing three types of potential leakage sity of the overburden (Oliveira et al. 1975; Banks 1972).
within the borehole which can be monitored by pressure transducers These two ways are valid (results are rather similar when
located above the upper packer and below the lower packer. A: small using a density of 2.7) whereas the first one is generally
dashed lines around packers; B: continuous arrows along fractures
and C: large dashed lines around packers (after Quinn et al. 2012) used for boreholes and dam engineering practice at shal-
low depth (less than 200 m), and the second one in tunnels,
caverns and at much greater depth in underground research
minutes, depending on the test programme (5 or 10 laboratories (URL).
stages) and the software used in the data acquisition In such cases, the maximum pressure should be calculated
system. considering the minimum principal rock stress at the site to
(k) Each pressure step is continued for 10 min after pres- avoid hydraulic fracturing. It is important to note that this is
sure stabilisation. Recording of data is made automati- not the pressure to be applied at the ground surface, but the
cally using the same time interval for each step. effective pressure recorded by the pressure transducer at the
(l) Five to ten steps of increasing pressure are used, fol- test interval, which should not exceed 1.0 MPa greater than
lowed by the steps of pressure decrease. the static hydraulic head of water. Nowadays and especially
in dam engineering, due to the increasing height of dams and
4.5 Pressure Stages the subsequent deepening of the investigations, the influence
of stresses at the site should also be considered.
The pressure stages applied in the Lugeon test depend on tech-
nical, practical and empirical factors, including the density of
the rock mass, the depth of the test interval and the regional 5 Calculations
practice as well. The estimation of the maximum effective
pressure is one of the first steps required when performing A single Lugeon value (Lugeon unit or LU, expressed in ℓ/
the Lugeon test. After the equipment is inserted into the bore- min/m at 1.0 MPa of effective test pressure) is calculated for
hole and the static water level is recorded, it is necessary to each pressure stage using the following equation:

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

Table 2  Suggestions for pressure stages based on general practice

Pressure stages Comments (pressures are in MPa)
Number Phase Stages

10 Increasing phase P0 P0 = 0 (initial conditions)*

Initial conditions for checking the pressure of the water column and stabilisation after packer
inflation (zero flow)
P1 = Pmin
Pmin = minimum effective pressure
P2 Pmax = maximum effective pressure
P3 (generally Pmin = 0.10–0.4 Pmax)
P4 The maximum pressure Pmax shall be
Pmax P5 = Pmax adapted to the site and work conditions, limited to 1.0 MPa of excess pressure
Decreasing phase P6 Example 1 (ten stages)
P7 Increasing phase: 0 (static level)/0.2/0.4/0.6/0.8 MPa of excess pressure
Pmax = 1 MPa (excess pressure)
P8
Decreasing phase: 0.8/0.6/0.4/0.2 MPa of excess pressure
P9 Example 2 (ten stages)

6 Increasing phase P0 Increasing phase: 0 (static level)/0.2/0.4/0.6/0.8 MPa of excess pressure

Initial conditions Pmax = 1 MPa (excess pressure)
Decreasing phase: 0.7/0.5/0.3/0.1 MPa of excess pressure
P1 = Pmin
P2
Pmax Pmax = P3 Example 3 (six stages)
Decreasing phase P4 Increasing phase: 0 (static level)/0.4/0.7 of excess pressure
Pmax = 1 MPa (excess pressure)
P5
Decreasing phase: 0.7/0.4 MPa of excess pressure

(*) The initial zero pressure corresponds to the existing hydrostatic pressure at the centre of the test interval. The test pressures (the effective
pressures) are pressures in excess to the hydrostatic pressure, which are limited to 1 MPa of excess pressure

pressures (due to variation in the aperture of the fractures

Q
LU = , in 𝓁∕min/m, at 1 MPa effective pressure. (3) induced by hydrojacking, resulting in changes in the flow
L regime). To validate this assumption or have a better eval-
The analysis of the test results is made considering the uation of the flow behaviour during the test, the test results
relationship between the flow rate per length in the test sec- (Table 4) should be graphed as shown in Table 5.
tion (Q/L) and the corresponding effective pressure (Peff).
Both parameters are automatically recorded by the electronic
data acquisition system.
The Lugeon unit, in litre per minute and per metre, is 6 Reporting of Results
considered at 1 MPa for comparison purpose, but in practice,
many Lugeon tests are run under lower pressure and even Results should be presented for each borehole using tables
sometimes at higher pressure (e.g., in the case of high dams). with identification of the client, details on the assemblage
The practice to express the result in Lugeon units is to of equipment, test results in terms of Lugeon and perme-
correct the result to the equivalent at 1 MPa using a correc- ability/hydraulic conductivity, histograms and diagrams
tion factor as expressed in the following equation: as shown in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Photographs of the test
apparatus and instrumentation are useful to document con-
Q 1 MPa
if Peff ≠ 1 MPa, LU = × in 𝓁∕min/m. (4) ditions and for reference if questions arise during analysis
L Peff
of test results.
Therefore, the water absorption is expressed in Lugeon The following three tables present examples of Lugeon
units, corrected to 1 MPa, although it has been tested under tests performed using a single packer and a pressure gauge
other pressures. located at the ground surface. Thus, the data sheets refer
It has to be noted that the correction factor (1 MPa/Peff) to the most complicated case and several parameters must
considers a linear relationship between the flow rate (Q) be measured to calculate the effective pressure. Simplified
and the pressure (P) which may be a valid assumption at data sheets can be adopted when the effective pressure is
quite low-pressure ranges, but may be invalid at higher automatically measured using digital pressure gauges set
in the test windows.

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

Table 3  Identification of the test

PROJECT NAME Borehole

LOGO No
Constant Pressure Step Injection Test
(Lugeon Test)

TEST CONDUCTED BY: DATE: TEST No:

TECHNICAL DATA & CHARACTERISTICS

Test Interval From: m/drilled Length of test interval: m

To: m/drilled Borehole inclinaon: ° / Vercal
Ref. Point Elevaon: m/ground level Borehole diameter: mm
Inial Hydrostac Level: m/Ref. Point Ground Surface Elevaon: m / Sea Level
Final Hydrostac Level: m/Ref. Point Injecon Pipe
Pressure Gauge Level: m/Ref. Point Diameter: mm
Packer Type: Length: m
Packer Length: m Pump Type:
Packer Pressure: MPa
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT

1: Pump
2: Flowmeter
3: Surface pressure gauge
4: Ground surface
5: Drillhole
6: Water injecon pipe
7: Inflatable packer
8: Groundwater level

Q: Water flowrate (ℓ/min)

L: Length of test intervals (m)
D: Diameter of test intervals (m)
Peff: Effecve pressure P eff = P + H1 + H2 – FL
(all units in MPa)
P: Pressure at gauge (MPa)
H: Length between surface pressure gauge and boom
of (upper) packer (m)
H 1: Height of pressure gauge above ground level (m)
H 2: Depth of groundwater level in borehole (m)
FL: Fricon losses (in MPa)

LU = Q / L at Peff = 1 MPa

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

Table 4  Data sheet showing the field test results

DATA SHEET (Example for 5 pressure stages)

Initial Step (P0 = 0): Initial conditions-static Step 2 (increasing Pressure)
level
Maximum Target Test starts Pressure Flowmeter Water
Pressure of Test (Pmax): MPa at at gauge readings Intake
hour: min (MPa) (ℓ) (ℓ/min)
Test Interval from: m 0 :00
Test Interval to: m 1 min
Packer Pressure: 2 min
Initial Hydrostatic Level: m 3 min
Hydrostatic level after 10 min: 4 min
5 min
6 min
7 min
8 min
Hydrostatic level at the end m 9 min
of test: 10 min

Step 1 (increasing Pressure) Step 3 (Pmax)

Test Pressure Flowmeter Water Test starts Pressure Flowmeter Water
starts at: at gauge readings Intake at at gauge readings Intake
hour: min (MPa) (ℓ) (ℓ/min) hour: min (MPa) (ℓ) (ℓ/min)
0 :00 0 :00
1 min 1 min
2 min 2 min
3 min 3 min
4 min 4 min
5 min 5 min
6 min 6 min
7 min 7 min
8 min 8 min
9 min 9 min
10 min 10 min

Step 4 (decreasing Pressure) Step 5 (decreasing Pressure)

Test Pressure Flowmeter Water Test starts Pressure Flowmeter Water
starts at at gauge readings Intake at at gauge readings Intake
hour: min (MPa) (ℓ) (ℓ/min) hour: min (MPa) (ℓ) (ℓ/min)
0 :00 0 :00 0 :00
1 min 1 min 1 min
2 min 2 min 2 min
3 min 3 min 3 min
4 min 4 min 4 min
5 min 5 min 5 min
6 min 6 min 6 min
7 min 7 min 7 min
8 min 8 min 8 min
9 min 9 min 9 min
10 min 10 min 10 min

OBSERVATIONS & COMMENTS DURING THE TESTS:

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

Table 5  Interpretation of test results

LUGEON – Graphical Analysis
P H1 H2 FL Peff Q LU
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (ℓ/min) (ℓ/min/m)

LUGEON TEST - Graphical Analysis

8
7
6
5
ℓ/min

4
3
2
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MPa

7 Interpretation of Lugeon Test Results representative Lugeon value for the maximum pres-
sure (Pmax) could be of smaller magnitude than those
7.1 Characteristics of the Relationship Between derived from the intermediate pressures and represents
Flow Rate Per Length Versus Pressure the value for the turbulent flow regime. This value of
Lugeon is recommended for grouting absorption evalu-
Interpretation of Lugeon test results is made through the ation. To estimate the permeability coefficient, the use
analysis of the relationship between the flow rate (Q) and of the geometric average of the lower range of pres-
pressure (P) corresponding to each stage of the test and sures (minimum or intermediate pressures) is the most
considering the flow regime, according to the diagrams appropriate.
presented in Table 6. Such diagrams are generic. However, (c) Deformation (dilation): when the Lugeon values cal-
they can be used whatever the purpose of the testing is (e.g., culated from the increasing pressure stages are smaller
assessment of the hydraulic conductivity, need for grouting, than those calculated from the decreasing stages and
analysis of the grouting efficiency). the two minimum values corresponding to the first and
Table 6 shows some typical diagrams derived from the the last pressures are approximately equal, temporary
test results: deformation of the rock mass maybe taking place. If
ideal elastic behaviour occurs, the Lugeon values of
(a) Laminar flow: this flow is assumed to occur when the increasing and decreasing pressure stages are equal.
relationship between the specific flow versus pressure To evaluate grouting absorption, the representative
“Q/P” is approaching a straight line. In this case, the Lugeon value obtained at the maximum pressure stage
representative Lugeon value and the associated perme- is recommended. The permeability coefficient, K, can
ability coefficient, K (see “Appendix”) can be estimated be estimated from the lowest pressure stage or, in case
using the average of the five values. of the linearity of flow versus pressure, from the geo-
(b) Turbulent or transitory flow: occurs when the graph of metric average of increasing pressure stages.
specific flow versus pressure is non-linear. If the rock (d) Wash-out of joint-filling materials or permanent defor-
is sound in the test section, this could be the result of mation: a progressive increase in the Lugeon values
head losses occurring during the flow processes. The without a return to values recorded prior to the use of

13


Table 6  Interpretation of Lugeon test results based on the relationship between the flow rate Q (in ℓ/min) versus pressure P (in MPa) Modified after Houlsby (1976)
Flow regime and hydraulic behaviour Relationship between flow rate Description of the graph Interpretation

13
Q (in ℓ/min) and pressure P (in
MPa)

Laminar flow The graph is near linear. Water absorption is nearly equal Lugeon value and permeability coefficient can be esti-
in the increasing and decreasing stages of pressure; mated using the average test results
Lugeon values remain approximately equal at all stages

Transitory or turbulent flow Flow decreases when the pressure increases. The Lugeon value at the highest pressure is in the transitory
minimum Lugeon value is recorded at the maximum or turbulent flow regime; estimation of the permeability
pressure stage coefficient should use the lowest or intermediate pres-
sure stages

Deformation/dilation of joints Initially, linear flow is observed before normal stress Lugeon value at the lowest pressure stages or from the
acting on existing joints is exceeded. The maximum average of increasing pressure stages, if the slope of the
flow will be reached with the maximum pressure. In graph is linear, should be used for permeability estima-
the stages of decreasing pressures, the flow is higher tions. For the evaluation of groutability, the highest
or equal to that of the increasing pressure stages. The pressure stages should be used
highest Lugeon value is observed with the highest
pressures, due to the joint opening

Wash-out or erosion of joint-filling Increasing flow with non-linear increasing pressure; The highest Lugeon value occurs at the highest pressure.
materials or permanent deforma- higher flow at decreasing pressure stages compared to The minimum pressure stage (first stage) can be used for
tion the corresponding increasing stages. Lugeon values permeability estimations. The highest pressure stages
increase as the test proceeds. Joint infilling is progres- should be used for groutability evaluations, based on
sively washed-out by the water under pressure the assumption of joint filling washing-out, replaced by
cement slurry

Void or joint filling Flow decreases as the test proceeds. Either non-persis- The highest Lugeon value occurs at the maximum pres-
tent discontinuities are progressively being filled or sure. The first pressure stage can be used to estimate
other phenomena such as swelling occur permeability and the highest pressure stage is used for
the evaluation of groutability
P. Vaskou et al.
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

maximum pressure suggests a permanent wash-out of Geometrical parameters of the joints, such as orienta-
the joint-filling material or a permanent deformation tion, spacing, aperture, roughness of the joint walls and
of the rock, caused by excessive pressures during the length, have great influence on the test results. Nowadays,
test. For grouting estimations, the highest Lugeon value with the sophisticated imaging instrumentation able to sur-
derived from the last injection/pressure stage can be vey the parameters of the joints inside boreholes, some of
used. To estimate the permeability coefficient K, the these parameters, such as orientation and spacing, can be
first pressure stage is recommended. statistically estimated with acceptable precision by means
(e) Void or joint filling: a progressive decrease in the of dedicated software.
Lugeon value could suggest that some materials filling Aperture and roughness are the main governing param-
voids or joints may have been gradually loosened and eters for flow in rock joints. These two parameters affect the
transported during the test, filling some joints close to head losses and consequently the flow regime used to inter-
the zone of the test, or that the joints distant from the pret the graphs shown in Table 5. Many authors have dem-
test interval are of limited extent. The highest Lugeon onstrated the influence of aperture and roughness based on
value is recommended for grouting absorption estima- laboratory experiments (Lomize 1951; Louis 1967; Rissler
tion. For permeability estimations, the first pressure 1977b; Barton and Quadros 1997; Esaki et al. 1999). The
stage would provide the most appropriate and repre- first two authors listed above have used artificial non-mat-
sentative values. ing fractures in glass and concrete. Parameters of influence
in flow in rock joints and rock masses are also thoroughly
As a rule of thumb, estimations for the permeability coef- described in Wittke (2014).
ficient should use the results obtained from the lowest pres- Interpretation of Lugeon test results using an isotropic
sure stages. For grouting predictions, the results from the permeability coefficient K, based on Darcy’s law can be
highest stages of pressure are the most appropriate. challenging, because the calculations are based on the length
Some of the most commonly used techniques to esti- of the test interval which in general varies from 1.5 to 3 m,
mate the equivalent isotropic hydraulic conductivity coef- while the joints generally have sub-millimetric apertures.
ficient (K) based on Lugeon test results are shown in the It is important to note that smaller intervals, allow more
“Appendix”. accurate results. When the rock matrix is almost impervious
(e.g., granite, gneiss), it can lead to unrealistic permeability
results unless the joints can be properly isolated in the test
7.2 Factors Influencing the Execution of the Test section (Sect. 4.4). Also, the calculation of the permeability
and Interpretation of the Results coefficient is based on many simplified assumptions; one
being that the flow obeys the Darcy’s law, which presup-
Planning of the Lugeon test should be based on geological poses a linearity between flow and pressure, which may not
surveys at the scale of the engineering work. The test inter- hold true.
vals should be designed taking into consideration the infor- Non-linearity has been proved by many researchers and
mation surveyed from the borehole logging or imagery, so the linearity assumed in the Darcy law is only valid in the
that the interpretation of the test results can be made accord- lowest range of pressures (Sharp and Maini 1972; Maini
ing to the characteristics of the joints appearing in each test et al. 1972; Zeigler 1976; Cruz and Quadros 1983; Raven
interval. and Gale 1985; Elsworth and Doe 1986).
The range of pressures to be applied should be planned The method proposed by Snow (1968) could be used to
according to the engineering structure to be built. Hydro- estimate the isotropic coefficient of permeability considering
electric projects and tunnels are the most common type of the statistics of the conductive and non-conductive joints in
engineering structures where the Lugeon test is performed. the test section. However, this method has been more applied
In these types of works, the depths of investigations are in in research projects than in the current practice of dam engi-
general smaller than 100–200 m. neering. Much research in this area has been conducted in
The selection of the maximum effective pressure may the underground research laboratories due to the need for
need to be directly related to the rock mass unit weight and high accuracy in the execution and interpretation of the test
to the depth of the structure. results.
If high accuracy is needed in the test results, smaller test Evaluation of groutability is one of the reasons to perform
intervals are recommended when trying to isolate a trans- Lugeon tests. Therefore, it is worth noting that permeability
missive geological feature/joint in the test section to esti- and groutability are not always related. Groutability depends
mate the hydraulic conductivity of the isolated feature. This on the number and aperture of the rock joints and to a lesser
allows a better estimation of the permeability coefficient as extent on joint connectivity (far field grouting). Connectivity
shown by Cruz et al. (1982) and Cruz and Quadros (1983). could be relatively less important due to the limited travel of

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

the grout in most cases, except in zones of very high perme- 8 Notes and Recommendations
ability. Head losses are high when the cement grout travels
into the rock joints, contributing also to reduce the extension The following notes and recommendations are essen-
of the grouting, which is one of the reasons for using high tially practical and mostly deal with field activities and
pressures when pre-grouting is applied ahead of tunnels. procedures:
Barton et al. (1985) and Barton (2004, 2006) proposed a
useful diagram based on Lugeon test results, using a modi- 1. It is highly recommended to perform Lugeon tests
fication of the Snow (1968) proposal. The purpose was using automated data logging and recording equip-
to predict the necessary fineness of the grout (industrial ment which eases the site activities, reduces the work-
grade, micro or ultrafine cements) based on the results of ing time and provides more accurate results. If such
the Lugeon tests. This method, involving back-calculated equipment is not available, the effective pressure shall
hydraulic apertures converted to physical apertures using be calculated using the geometry of the assemblage,
the joint roughness coefficient (JRC), is rather easy to apply the depth of the ground water level and the head losses
in the field. The approximations used in this case assume measured empirically at site with the same tubing used
that the physical apertures are larger than the conducting to conduct the water to the test intervals (diameter and
apertures due to roughness of fractures and rock contacts. length).
One of the main limitations of the Lugeon test is linked 2. The use of straddle packers is recommended since it
to the fact that the test results are valid only for a limited is an efficient way to save time and perform numerous
volume of the rock mass around the borehole. According tests sequentially after the borehole is totally drilled.
to Bliss and Rushton (1984), the effect of a test performed Straddle packers shall be used in conjunction with
in an interval of 3-m length is restricted to an approximate pressure transducers to detect water leakages (even
radius of 10 m around the borehole, which suggests that the below the lower packer).
permeability estimated from the Lugeon test is valid for a 3. When weak zones or highly fractured rocks are
cylinder of rock limited by the length of the test interval and encountered during the drilling, which can produce
the radius given above. collapse of the hole, performing the Lugeon test as
Based on laboratory experiments reported by Quadros soon as possible is recommended, if required cement
and Cruz (1995), the analysis of the effective hydraulic head the concerned zone for stability, and resume the drill-
versus the distance from the borehole walls also showed that ing after the test.
the water pressures are quickly dissipated at small distances 4. Most of the Lugeon tests are performed in vertical
from the borehole walls. The experience has shown that this holes. In case of inclined boreholes, e.g., 30° verti-
distance depends on the amount of flow, the flow regime and cal, the use of straddle packers after complete drilling
the Reynolds number (Rissler 1977a, b; Quadros and Cruz of the borehole shall be restricted to good geological
1995). Only about 50% of the injection pressure may remain conditions to ensure a total stability of the hole and to
at 1.0 m of radius. prevent loss of testing equipment.
Guerra et al. (1968), Arhippainen (1970), Lancaster-Jones 5. Packer(s) shall be properly set to avoid fractured zones
(1975) and Cruz et al. (1982) have discussed the existence and prevent water leakage. If it is not possible to have
of turbulent or transitory flow when performing the constant both packers sealed in unfractured rock when a straddle
head tests and the differences in the relationship between packer is used, the length of the test interval shall be
flow versus pressure when the flow is laminar or turbulent. changed (lengthened or shortened), so the two packers
These authors also agree that the geometrical parameters of are sealed in compact rock sections.
the joints have an important influence on the flow during 6. Prior to performing a Lugeon test, the number of frac-
the tests. tures appearing in the test interval needs to be checked
Due to the relatively small volume of the rock mass based on the use of borehole imagery (acoustic and/or
reached by Lugeon tests, extrapolations of results when optical televiewers) or the observation of cores. This
desirable must be carefully made and based on a sound can help one choose the proper test intervals and pro-
knowledge of the structural geology. Analytical solutions vides more accurate analysis during the interpretation
that rely on the assumption that a large portion of the rock of the test results. Considering that the test sections
mass is involved in the test should not be used. Therefore, are much larger than the apertures of the individual
the recommended practice is for an accurate planning of the fractures, the hydraulic conductivities will be under-
borehole locations and selection of the intervals of testing, estimated. Therefore, the shorter the length of the test
such that the results are representative of the geology at the interval, the greater accuracy will be obtained when
site and of the hydraulic behaviour of the rock mass at the performing a Lugeon test.
scale of the engineering work as well.

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

7. The pressure stages applied in the Lugeon test depend Acknowledgements  The authors wish to thank all reviewers for their
on technical, practical and empirical factors. The maxi- constructive comments on the manuscript versions with special thanks
to Resat Ulusay (Hacettepe University) and Christophe Vibert (Stucky,
mum effective test pressure should be calculated after Switzerland). They also extend their gratitude to Nick Barton (Barton
the assemblage of the equipment, before performing & Associates) for his support and valuable contribution regarding the
the Lugeon test. The maximum effective pressure can 3D flow in rock masses.
be defined considering an average specific weight of
about 2700 kg/m3 for the rock mass, or less depending Compliance with Ethical Standards 
on the local geological conditions.
8. Selection of the gauge pressure (and hence that of Conflict of interest The authors wish to confirm that there are no
known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there
test section measured by a transducer) depends on has been no financial support for this work that could have influenced
the effective hydraulic head on the test section and its outcome.
the overburden stress/pressure (plus friction losses).
Determination of the effective hydraulic head on the
test section may depend on several factors including
Appendix
measured overnight water levels during drilling, depth
of casing and records from nearby piezometers, and
Estimation of the equivalent isotropic coefficient of per-
may not be reflected as a simple measure of the water
meability (hydraulic conductivity K) and estimation of the
column in the drill string.
transmissivity (T).
9. A proper evaluation of Lugeon test results requires the
values to be correlated with the geological structure.
The test interval should be designed based on the infor- General Considerations
mation from the borehole log or borehole imagery,
so that results can be related to the characteristics of Available equations and techniques to estimate the per-
the joints appearing in the test interval. The test and meability/hydraulic conductivity coefficient (K) based on
the range of pressures to be used should be planned Lugeon test results, in general, are based on Darcy’s law
according to the engineering structure to be built, such and consideration of a laminar flow regimen. The use of the
as a dam or a tunnel. diagrams shown in Table 6 allows evaluation of the flow
10. Interpretation of Lugeon test results through the esti- regime from the test results. The recommended practice is
mation of an isotropic permeability coefficient K, the use of the lowest stage of pressures when the objective
based on Darcy’s law, considers the linearity of flow is the evaluation of the rock mass permeability. The higher
versus pressure and a laminar flow regimen, which stages of pressure are used when the objective is to estimate
could be observed only in the lower stages of pres- grouting absorption. Diagrams obtained from the test are
sures. This coefficient should also be representative of used to select the best linear relationships and the average
the flow through rock joints having, in general, sub- values are to be used in the formulae.
millimetric apertures and not of the flow through the Due to the specific difficulties related to the application
whole test interval having, in general, some 1.5–3 m of the flow laws valid for rock fractures (Louis 1967; Rissler
length. 1978; Quadros 1982), the equivalent isotropic hydraulic con-
11. The method proposed by Snow (1968) could be used to ductivity coefficient K is used in the current practice to inter-
estimate the isotropic coefficient of permeability con- pret results of Lugeon test. If the characteristics and number
sidering the spacing and conductive aperture statistics of the discontinuities in the test section are known, some of
in the test section. A graph considering the relation- the main features contributing to the flow might be deduced.
ship between spacing (S) and the hydraulic aperture
(e) based on the cubic network model from Snow is Estimation of the Equivalent Isotropic Permeability
proposed by Barton (2006), which is useful for taking or Hydraulic Conductivity Coefficient (K)
to the field due to the correlations proposed by the and Estimation of the Transmissivity (T) Based
author (Fig. 4, in “Appendix”). on the Lugeon Test Results
12. Roeper et al. (1992) discussed the applicability of the
Lugeon test to hydrogeological investigations. They
also recommended that the representative Lugeon (a) Method proposed by Franciss (1970)
values are those estimated at low pressures, since the
groundwater flow occurs under natural hydraulic gradi- The method proposed by Franciss is based on Babouchkine
ent. (1965) for the analysis of flow in wells where the test

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

Fig. 4  Representation of a jointed rock mass as a cubic network of conducting joints following Snow (1968) and Barton et al. (1985) and graph
for the estimation of the Lugeon value from hydraulic aperture (e) and spacing of fractures (S) from Barton (2004)

section is at a certain distance from the water table (which (b) Use of Thiem’s equation to estimate the transmissivity
is the general practice). According to the author, the equiv- T (Thiem 1906)
alent hydraulic conductivity coefficient can be estimated
using the following equation valid for laminar flow (refer The transmissivity T can be related to the permeability/
Table 6): hydraulic conductivity (K) in the test interval through the
[ ] expression K = TL and the use of a radial flow model, where
Q 0.66L
K= ln . (5) L is assumed to have the following two meanings:
2𝜋HL D∕2

13
ISRM Suggested Method for the Lugeon Test

(i) L is equal to the length of the test section. In this possible through two of the three sets, or through lesser frac-
case, a general porous media approach is used to tions of all three assumed sets as the gradient rotates around
interpret the test results. This hypothesis considers the cube. The next step is to convert e to E (mechanical/
that the rock matrix is pervious. physical aperture) using the joint roughness coefficient JRC,
(ii) L = e, where e is the equivalent aperture of the joint then test that E > 4 d95 of the cement particles and choose
(or joints) appearing in the test interval. In this case, grout type and injection pressure accordingly.
a radial flow model is used to evaluate the transmis- The hydraulic aperture can be estimated using the fol-
sivity around the test section and the rock matrix is lowing formula:
assumed to be impervious.
e ≈ (L × 6 × S × 10−8 )1∕3 (7)
According to Thiem (1906), In this equation, the hydraulic aperture (e) and the mean
fracture spacing (S) are in mm. Each of the above apply to
a given structural domain, to the whole borehole, or to a
[ ]
Qln Rr
T= . (6) specific rock type (Barton 2004).
2𝜋P

In Thiem’s equation (Eq. 6), the radius of influence R is

affected by many factors, and among them: References
Arhippainen E (1970) Some notes on the design of grouted curtains on
• The hydraulic conductivity of the test section which is the basis of water-pressure tests. In: Proceedings in international
deeply dependent on the hydraulic conductivities of the congress on large dams, Montreal, pp 137–145
rock joints; ASTM D4630-96 (2008) Standard test method for determining trans-
• the interconnectivity of the joints; missivity and storage coefficient of low-permeability rocks by
in situ measurements using the constant head injection test
• the hydraulic boundaries; Babouchkine V in Bogomolov G (1965) Hydrogéologie et notions de
• the pressures applied during the test. Géologie d´Ingénieur. Editions de la Paix, Moscou
Banks DC (1972) In situ measurements of permeability in basalt. In:
As this parameter occurs within a natural logarithmic Proceedings in international symposium on percolation through
fissured rock, Stuttgart, 1972. IAEG/ISRM, Deutsche Gesells-
function, one can use an approximation. For example, for a chaft, T1-A, pp 1–6
borehole in HQ diameter (95.3 mm, r = 0.0477 m) consid- Barton N (2004) The theory behind high pressure grouting. Tunn Tunn
ering R values of 1, 5, 10 and 100 m, the value of Ln (R/r) Int, Sept: 28–30, Oct: 33–35
would be, respectively, 3.04 m, 4.61 m, 5.3 m and 7.65 m. Barton N (2006) Integrating Q-logging with seismic refraction, perme-
ability, pre-grouting, tunnel, cavern support needs and numerical
Hence, the value of R attributed to Eq. 5 will have only a modelling performance. Keynote lecture, Hong Kong, Institute
small effect on the estimated value for the transmissivity, T, of Engineers, Geotechnical Division Annual Meeting, May 2006
using Eq. 6 and the Lugeon test results. Barton N, Quadros EF (1997) Joint aperture and roughness in the pre-
diction of flow and groutability of rock masses. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 34:252–267
(c) Practical rule proposed by Nonveiller (1989) Barton N, Bandis S, Bakhtar K (1985) Strength, deformation and
conductivity coupling of rock joints. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
A simple relationship between 1 LU and K is proposed by Geomech 22(3):121–140
Nonveiller (1989), for a test interval of 5-m length, where r Bliss C, Rushton KR (1984) The reliability of packer tests for estimat-
ing the hydraulic conductivity of aquifers. Q J Eng Geol Hydro-
is the radius of the borehole geol 17:81–91
Cruz PT, Quadros EF (1983) Analysis of water losses in basaltic rock
K = 1.5 × 10−5 LU (in cm/s), when r = 4.6 cm, joints. In: Proceedings on 5th international congress on rock
mechanics, melbourne, B, pp 119–123
K = 1.3 × 10−5 LU (in cm/s), when r = 7.6 cm. Cruz PT, Quadros EF, Correa FD, Marrano A (1982) Evaluation of
opening and hydraulic conductivity of rock discontinuities. In:
As this relation considers only the length of the test inter- 23rd symposium on rock mechanics (USRMS), Berkeley, pp
val, its use should be restricted for rough estimates. 25–27
Elsworth D, Doe TW (1986) Application of non-linear flow laws in
determining rock fissure geometry from simple borehole pumping
(d) Representation of a jointed rock mass as a cubic net- tests. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 23(3):233–244
work of conducting joints, following Snow (1968) and Esaki T, Du S, Mitani Y, Ikusada K, Jing L (1999) Development of a
Barton et al. (1985) (Fig. 4). shear-flow test apparatus and determination of coupled proper-
ties for a single rock joint. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 36:641–650
Franciss FO (1970) Contribution à l’étude du mouvement de l’eau à
Note that the e versus S curves for specific Lugeon values are travers les milieux fissurés. Thèse de Doctorat: Faculté des Sci-
derived from the given equation which assumes that flow is ences de l’Université de Grenoble

13
 P. Vaskou et al.

Gringarten AC (2008) From straight lines to deconvolution: the evo- Quinn SA, Liss D, Johnson D, van Wonderen JJ, Power T (2012)
lution of the state of the art in well test analysis. In: 2006 spe Recharge estimation methodologies employed by the Environ-
annual technical conference and exhibition, publisher: Society of ment Agency of England and Wales for the purposes of regional
Petroleum Engineers, pp 41–62. ISSN: 1094-6470 groundwater resource modelling. In: Shepley MG, Whiteman MI,
Guerra JR, Weyermann W, Mota OS (1968) Le caractère de la percola- Hulme PJ, Grout MW (eds) Groundwater resources modelling: a
tion d’une roche d’après les observations préalables faites pour le case study from the UK, vol 364. Geological Society, London, pp
projet d’écran d’étanchéité. In: Proceedings in 9th international 65–83 (special publications)
congress on large dams, Istanbul, vol 1, pp 109–122 Raven KG, Gale JE (1985) Water flow in a natural fracture as a func-
Houlsby AC (1976) Routine interpretation of the Lugeon water-test. Q tion of stress and sample size. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
J Eng Geol 9:303–313 22:251–261
Houlsby AC (1990) Construction and design of cement grouting: a Rissler P (1977a) Determination of the permeability of jointed rock.
guide to grouting in rock foundations. Wiley, Hoboken Institute for Foundation Engineering, Soil Mechanics, Rock
Hvorslev, MJ (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in ground-water Mechanics and Water Ways Construction, RWTH Aachen, vol 5
observations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experi- Rissler P (1977b) Empfehlung Nr. 9 des Arbeitskreises 19 – Versuch-
ment Station, Bulletin No. 36 stechnik Fels - der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erd- und Grundbau
ISO 22282-3:2012(E) (2012) Geotechnical investigation and testing— e.V. Wasserdruckversuch in Fels, Bautechnik 194(4):112–117
geohydraulic testing—part 3: water pressure tests in rock Rissler P (1978) Determination of water permeability of jointed rock.
Lancaster-Jones PFF (1975) The interpretation of the Lugeon water- Aachen, RWTH University, Institute for Foundation Engineering,
test. Q J Eng Geol 8:151–154 Soil Mechanics, Rock Mechanics and Waterways, p 149
Lomize G (1951) Fluid flow in fissured formations (in Russian). Gos- Roeper TR, Soukup WG, O’Neill RL (1992) The applicability of the
energoizdat, Moscow, in Louis, 1967 Lugeon method of packer test analysis to hydrogeologic investi-
Louis C (1967) Étude des écoulements d’eau dans les roches fissurées gations. In: Focus conference on eastern regional ground water
et de leur influence sur la stabilité des massifs rocheux. Bulletin issues. National Ground Water Association Dublin, pp 661–671
de la Direction des Études et Recherches, Paris 3:5–132 (Thèse Sharp JC, Maini YNT (1972) Fundamental considerations on the
Doct. Université Karlsruhe) hydraulic characteristics of joints in rock. In: Proceedings in
Lugeon M (1933) Barrages et Géologie. Dunot, Paris international symposium on percolation through fissured rock,
Maini Y N T, Noorishad J, Sharp J (1972) Theoretical and field con- Stuttgart, IAEG/ISRM, Deutsche Gesellschaft, T1F, pp 1–15
sideration on the determination of in situ hydraulic parameters in Snow DT (1968) Rock fracture, spacings, openings and porosities. J
fractured rock. In: Proceedings in ISRM international symposium Soil Mech Found Div Am Soc Civ Eng 5736:73–91
on percolation through fissured rock, Stuttgart Thiem G (1906) Hydrologische method. Gebhardt, Leipzig
Nonveiller E (1989) Grouting—theory and practice. Elsevier, Wittke W (2014) Rock mechanics based on an anisotropic jointed rock
Amsterdam model. Ernst & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin
Oliveira AMS, Silva RF, Ferreira JJ (1975) Water pressure tests (in Por- Zeigler TW (1976) Determination of rock mass permeability. Technical
tuguese). Brazilian Association of Engineering Geology (ABGE), report S-76-2. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
São Paulo, Bulletin No. 2 Vicksburg, MS
Pearson R, Money MS (1977) Improvements in the Lugeon or packer
permeability test. Q J Eng Geol 10(3):221–239 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Quadros EF (1982) Study of the flow characteristics in rock fractures. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Polytechnical School of São Paulo University, Department of
Civil Engineering (in Portuguese)
Quadros EF, Cruz PT (1995) Water pressure tests and flow in single
rock fractures. In: Proceedings in 35th U.S. symposium, Reno,
Nevada. Balkema, Rotterdam, vol II, pp 901–906

13